[laughter] [applause] ♪ >> you are so great. >> tonight on c-span, the big 12 conference hosts a discussion about money in college sports. then a look at the problem of drowsy driving. later, the texas tribune debate on undocumented immigrant children. >> up next, a discussion about money in college athletics. sports writers and officials discussed the money made, compensation for student athletes, and possible reforms at the ncaa. the big 12 conference hosted this event at the national press club in washington. it is an hour and a half.

>> good afternoon. this is the second of a series of tamils on college athletics. thank you for joining us here today in washington, d.c., online, and on c-span as well. the numbers in college sports are staggering. something easily be we are talking in terms of's -- of points scored, yards gained, or a number of things ushered quantitatively -- attendance, participation, and money. according to filings with the department of education, in 2011, the most recent year for which the numbers are available, college sports generated $12.6 billion. last year, the university of texas alone took in more than $265 million. espn is paying in excess of $600

million a year to televise the college playoff system. the price tag for the ncaa basketball tournament, march 10 $20 billion for a 14 year deal. athletic departments at many schools, and in fact most schools, operate in the red. the star player on the championship team that won the men's basketball tournament last year said that some nights, he goes to bed hungry. so where does the money go? there would seem to be more of beenan there ever has before, but not everyone agrees its distribution has been wiser equitable. here to help us parse the issues are a handful of men with significant knowledge and experience regarding the most visible sports in our culture, and how they are run. a sportskowitz is project reporter for usa today,

specializing in enterprise stories and investigations. he has also dedicated considerable time to compiling the newspaper's college sports compensation and finance database. patrick sandusky, the chief communications and public affairs officer for the united states olympics committee. he is also a former college athlete, an offensive langman at northern illinois. crystal contact -- chris is the director of athletics at tcu. he has served in that position since october of 2009. steve utterson is the university of texas athletics director. he was previously at arizona state, and spent two decades in professional sports. among other roles he was general manager of the houston rockets and portland trail blazers. and pete is a senior writer for sports illustrated, who covers college football and basketball. he worked for the new york times where he was nominated for a pulitzer prize.

a story about faulty academic credentials obtained by talented high school athletes. the big 12 commissioner had planned to be with us today, but recuperating from surgery. we'll want wish him the best. all opinions expressed today are those of the panelists themselves, and do not represent the organizations with which they are associated. this is a time of of people in sports. upheaval in sports. the regional director of the national labor relations board ruled that the players should be allowed to form a union. aere was a lawsuit brought by former basketball player at o'bannon. that was only a day after the so-called big five athletic in essence broke

away from the rest of the ncaa. how does the commerce of college sports now change? i will talk first with the man programsin overseeing at universities. why don't we start with you, steve? >> i do not know that it has changed all that much over the years. for a long time schools have competed. it is a part of the american culture. there have been movements to regulate that, going back more than 100 years. i think what we see are greater student services, greater facilities, larger coaching contracts, bigger staffs than we had in the past. the reality is we want to provide the best student services we can to have the best outcomes from our student athletes that we can. that takes a lot of resources. to generate those resources you have to have media contracts, sell a lot of tickets, and one -- raise a lot of money and sell a lot of merchandise, and all of the other things that provide those revenues to revive those services.

-- provide those services. >> i concur with what steve is saying. if you look at it from the evolution of college athletics, from the time of ncaa, to 1972 is men's athletics is 22 years. it think about the popularity of football today, used to have a limited scholarships back in the day. then it went to 110, 95, and today it is 85. the rise of forbes state, tcu, baylor -- nontraditional powers have become relevant. today, the popularity of college athletics, football in particular, is second to none. yet we are running a business based on people's passion, that says that we must have two revenue streams to support 20 sports based on your student population.

commerce has changed drastically. how we fund college athletics has changed, and the idea that thesis we used in my paper, we are put in the position today, what are we providing for our student athletes? it is no longer the handshake. a kid comes to tcu, it is not a i've your decision. it is a 50 year decision. five yearot a decision. it is a 50 year decision. there is tremendous pressure to perform. the demands of winning, the demands of keeping her coach, the demands of providing opportunities for young people are ever greater. we always have to see it evolving. >> when it really meant, was given what has happened within the last year, specifically within the last few months, the prospect of change. do you foresee business being done any differently, given the o'bannon decision, the possibility that your model may change? >> that is a different question. without question. one thing you know about college athletics is that it is ever-changing.

no doubt about it. athleteieve ace didn't should receive full compensation? absolutely, i do. when you start to think about the ramifications of the o'bannon case and the stipend that was put toward, that was good to put tremendous pressure on college athletes, because for us at tcu, getting into the big 12 conference has been great, but our largest donor has been the institution. this newfoundty, money everybody things we received, actually goes back to the university, to lessen our burden on that institution. you look at these programs becoming truly self-sufficient. we are part parcel of an institution. the success of our athletic program and the rise of tcu, going to the rose bowl we're up to 20,000 for the same 1600 spots. we are only talking about men's basketball and football. how does that affect title ix?

we have not even talked about that. you cannot say we are only going to provide opportunities for two sports. what is that -- hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? really? i have two daughters that are going to say, pay the piper. how do we do that? this is an opportunity -- you have to say this is an opportunity for everybody, and we are prepared to do that -- are not prepared to do that. >> steve, you have spent a considerable amount of time covering college sports. the numbers. how do you see the cost of attendance changing and affecting the way colleges and universities in their athletic departments do business? >> it is going to be an interesting thing, for how schools managed to do this whether or not there will be , this continuing effort to try to raise more money and generate more money through commercial enterprises, or whether or not this is going to be the kind of thing that perhaps better justifies institutional involvement in supporting college athletic programs.

the trend has been making athletic programs self-sufficient, and this is almost creating a perpetual motion machine. it has resulted in increased pressure to increase revenue, which is in turn making so much revenue generated that the general public, people who are lawyers, judges, are looking at this and going wow, there is so much money generated here that something more needs to be done for the athletes. the athletes are entitled for compensation for the way they are participating in the generation of that money. it creates some interesting questions as to how colleges want to deal with this, and what impact of that will be. will it continue to further perpetuate this?

>> patrick, chris mentioned the impact on title ix. scott was in here earlier, speaking about olympic sports, and i guess you could ask about what is going to become of the olympic sports, the nonrevenue sports. >> title ix was the greatest thing to happen to college athletics, and to the united states olympic team. if you go back and look at the women's games in the london games, if the women of team usa were their own country they , would have finished third in the medal count just by the women alone. we are benefited immensely by the inclusion of women in sport . there is 205 olympic committees in the world. i daresay if we are not the best culture of inclusion in sport, i do not think that anybody can say they are better than us. title ix has been fantastic for us. however there is a harsh , reality. the stresses and finances of an athletic program could come under. scott said earlier, nobody in

these guys' situation has ever lost their job because of the poor performance of their olympics program. people pay attention to basketball, to football, and the metrics by which they get their donors and fundraising done, and their sponsorships and the tv contracts. there are a lot of implications of the event have negatively impacted supporting programs. increasing the cost for the universities for their student athletes. you look at how many wrestling programs around the entry have -- the country have shrunk over the years. the number of gymnastic rogue rams that have shrunk to get that balance. make no doubt about it that the olympic sport programs are more under threat than they have ever been. that is certainly worrisome to us. >> the topic of this panel is supposed to be about money. where does the money go?

it certainly has been in the news, todd being suspended in georgia for allegedly selling his autograph. should a player be allowed to sell his own likeness? >> that is a great question. i usually cover college sports from the bottom up. everything comes through recruiting. that is the majority of where corruption happens, high school recruiting, through boosters and whatnot. there is a black market in college football. it exists now. glimpses.onally get in basketball, it is fueled by agents. in football, it is fueled by boosters. it is a wink and a nod, a little beast that happens. you have a billion dollar laborss dedicated on free and this is to fuel the billion

, dollar beast. i think everyone is happy with the way it is working out right now, the black market existing in the shadows as it does. if you start to allow people to use their likeness to make money, which conceptually is very easy -- he should be able to make money off his autograph -- it opens onto pandora's box. knowing how middlemen work and how agents work -- you can make money off your autograph. how much, where does it go? with atlanta.sign there is an autograph business set up, so when you sign with them, you can automatically get this much. when people talk about paying players, there are so many unintended consequences of those who have not sat on the baseline and watched how the world works. theynot -- i do not think understand how tricky that comes. title ix got rocked up. do you only pay football and basketball? do swimming athletes get paid

for their autographs? if so what university could , afford -- it will become a bottleneck competition. ago, football staffs had 17, 18 guys. now they have 45. everyone is looking for an edge everywhere they go. in the reality of the application of the it could get very tricky. even -- we see these autograph guys who look like your scum of the earth guys trying to make money off of kids. it would open up a lot of really scary doors. it is something that i think, once you get to full cost of attendance, once you go past that marker, it gets really complicated. >> we saw what the judge set up in this very complicated injunction behind the o'bannon decision, i think there is some sensitivity behind that.

it is why it makes the next round of lawsuits, the ones involving martin jenkins, the player that is represented by jeff kessler, these big cases that could cost the school a lot of money in damages through retroactive deferential between cost of attendance and grant aid, and what the future would be with the ability of athlete s to be able to demand whatever they can get, this becomes a really big deal. i think that is why the judge was trying to create some ink -- something that was somewhere in between. as pete said it is a very , difficult issue to balance. the lawyers that litigate that case even now are trying to decipher what the judgment in inwith the judge meant

certain ways, in the way the ruling and injunction were set up. >> cost of attendance describes -- cost of attendance, there is a model the federal government prescribes at every campus, set to a number of meetings. it is calculated differently everywhere. at our school, it looks like full cost of attendance might be as much as $4000 or more per year. per athlete. at some schools in our conference, even ones in the same state, they do not have the same numbers. is not calculation that easy to come to for all the campuses. i want to go back to something you said earlier. at the end of the day there is this misperception that the labor is free in college athletics. that is not accurate. if you're a full ride football player at the university of texas, the benefit you get for room, board, books, tuition, training, meals, fees, and medical, it is $69,000 a year.

that is tax-free. putsdd taxes on that, that you at the top third of the household incomes of the united states. if you're a basketball player it is $77,000 a year. i do not think that student athletes are being taken advantage of when they are in the top third or quartile of household incomes in the united states. that is really what we need to be talking about. >> one of the benefits for student athletes is something you did not mention. tutoring, networking, alumni, things that benefited me in my career. frankly, i was not very good at what ball. i was a backup on a really bad team. i had to find something else to do. i realized that quite quickly. but the program itself was there for you to succeed, to have the tutors, to have the individual ized coaching specialization, to have the networks i still

rely on nearly 20 years later. it is nearly hard to quantify some of those costs as a former athlete who by looking at me you , can tell i never went to bed hungry. i was well fed there, and still do -- and still am. you really get an opportunity to really do more than just playing football. to get an enhanced student fixed -- experience beyond what the normal student gets. i cannot put a value on that but , it really is wonderful. >> as the cynical journalist, i will back his point on this. i did a study several years ago, we looked at the value of the men's basketball scholarship. we came out to a figure that is closer to $120,000 when you look at all of the things that he -- that patrick is talking about, in trying to place a value on the academic support. there are other things that have actual real value that you can

tally up -- the free admissions to games and other things that people do not think about. subtract 6:00 a.m. practices during spring break? [laughter] i would take that out. >> you know this way better than i do, but in terms of the demands that are placed on the athletes -- i think that is where the friction begins to come in. this is some of the stuff that came to light in the nlrb hearing and some of the things we heard in the o'bannon case, and that testimony of what the athletes do, what they feel they have to do, what they are forced or expected to do, and the nature of that trade-off. and how all of that works, and the nature of the pressures and demands that are placed on the athletes in relation to the amount of money that is being generated based on what they are doing. >> i agree with steve paterson,

and i led him down the road by saying free labor. but these guys have it good. i spent 200 days on the road on different campuses. i see that "they go to bed hungry" narrative is one of the all-time false narratives that could ever be eventuated in the history of college. if you look at the math of these guys, there is no way, if he is going to bed hungry, that is his own fault. that is what, coast to coast, people told me. i've spent a week behind the scenes at mississippi state, and let it tell you i gained five pounds being in their building. these guys come off the field and they have shakes specifically made to their flavor taste, weight gain, weight loss and they go into the practice facility. there is a snack bar.

some of that is because the rule was changed. the ncaa denied it, but that headline became a toxic thing. i think it is good, by the way. these athletes should be fed, if there's one thing they should never limit it is feeding athletes, taking care of them, medical care, those a sick rights. things are changing. it is a great thing for everybody. i do not think you will get anyone around sports to disagree these athletes should not be taken care of to the fullest, but napier going to bed hungry -- i think that is completely and utterly false. it is a misuse of what they are given, if they have gotten to that point. >> i think this narrative, that said, probably has something to do with it. the establishment is making millions and millions of dollars. in essence, there are kids who fromny cases, from -- come

nothing and have their noses pressed up against the window and saying, where's mine. that is not fair. >> you have to say -- outside of the g.i. bill, college athletics provides the largest need case -- need-based merit aid in the united states. look,generation -- if you i came from a children's home in taos, new mexico. my out was through sport. the second year they dropped the sport, because they had to enact title nine. they dropped men's track and sport. luckily, santa barbara picked me up. i got back into sport. i try to help young people get a degree and change the world.

last year we had 85 kids graduate from texas christian university. only one went pro. think about all those other kids that are going to go out and do phenomenal things, but we focus on a napier who did not have enough munchies. it you knew what we give them, holy cow, there is no way he is starving. you're giving him a full ride to go to school to make a decision. , a lot of time those kids are first-generation kids, never had an opportunity to do something. had two kids graduate from texas last year. took them 5.5 years to graduate. they got done playing in four, but we continue their education until they earn their degree. we do not talk about those stories. we lost our voice to say, what do we provide in college athletics? where are we headed? we look at all of this money over here, and we look at the 523 campus athletes and what they are doing throughout their lives, and that is part of the problem. the few that got their nose

pressed against the window -- i am not talking to the masses. when you come to my campus, you come to my students and say, you are getting a raw deal? they say, no sir. i cannot believe i am getting this opportunity. i cannot thank you enough. >> you guys have the greatest renown for doing things that create most of the revenue that support a lot of the other athletes. in some cases, they are also guys whose fifty-year decision after they get done with school results in tough circumstances for these guys whether it is medical, whether nor not they did not give an indication that -- get educations that enabled them to get jobs. we did a story for years ago that talked about guys who talk to us about getting degrees the

-- that resulted in them not being qualified to take off to do something meaningful in their lives. i mean, i think there is a flip side to it as well. i understand on a broader basis that there are a lot of people who are in sports outside of football and basketball who would tell you this is the greatest thing. >> that is a cynical view, though, which is your job. my job is to tell you it is half full. i wake up, my cup is overflowing with college athletics. do not think somebody who asks questions necessarily looks at the glass as half-full. >> i am a sociology major. what is he doing? the way i grew up, it was a phenomenal major for me. that is what i wanted to do. it was a criminal justice major, or whatever they may be in, social sciences. especially at tcu, there is no

major you can hide in. 8000 students, 13 in a classroom, we are a little bit different. i still look at that as an opportunity for that one individual to leave their place and go to school and get whatever degree it may be. are they better off than where they were? that is a key question. are they better off than where they were, and can become a productive member of society? i think i read a statistic the other day that, if i am not mistaken, tony 7% of the united states population has a college 28 percent, right in that area. think about that. your average lifetimes earnings are $1 million more. 70% of the u.s. population does not have a college degree. that individual, is he better off than not having a college degree? >> i think it is somewhere between the two points. i remember being a freshman offensive lineman, and he asked us what our majors are were going to be. i said i was going to major in english, and he said are you

sure you got that right? i said yes, and he said the new -- then you better not get any bad grades this semester. i said, i think i will be all right. thanks for asking and caring. there were guys that mailed it in academically, and there were guys that went on to get his mr. grieves and engineering degrees. and there were guys that got 0.0 grade point averages and got kicked out of school. i saw the whole gamut of that, and you are given at least the opportunity. and i know there's a lot. reasons why or why not people choose or don't choose, i'm not trying trying to say that everyone has the same situation. but while that can happen, there's also opportunity for the athletes as well. >> jimmy, this is what i think is interesting from an academic east. we're just seeing the general competitiveness at american colleges and universitieses just spiking at an all-time high. i saw a statistic at a major football college that the senior class that's graduating now, a third of them wouldn't get in as freshmen now.

so you have the admissions competition being as tough as ever, but the football team is essentially on a plane here and here. and i think that's why you're seeing the stuff at notre dame and other places. i think it's incumbent on the university -- a lot these places have million dollar centers, but that gap is not getting any smaller. it's going to be harder to get into school and if you want to be competitive in major college football you'll still need to get in kids who barely qualify. and i think that will create a lot more situations than we've seen now, at the places who are actually end indicating the -- educating the kids, who aren't just putting them in i independent studies and pushing them through. the places that have a little academic soul, and you can debate how many do and don't, you're going to see kids failing and you're going to see the pressure, kids cheat, kid do different things. because i think that's inherent to the situation. -- have a bunch of kids with

i know it is a sliding scale. you have 850 s.a.t. kids in the room with 1400 s.a.t. kids, they don't fit. the inherent pressures, they are inherently rising. so that's one of the problems we see on the bottom line. >> what i give credit for -- you don't hear athletic directors saying they should be allowed to major in football. you go to school for dance, you major in dance. you go to school for art, you major in art. you go to school for football, they want to know why you're being hidden in organizational studies. not that anybody here is an organizational studies major. i apologize. that is not what they are advocating for across campuses. they're actually advocating for them to be part of the students experience, and to your point of 85 graduates, one went pro, you're not saying guys this shouldn't be part of your routine. this should not be part of you developing as a young woman or a young man. they are making a part. i give them a lot of credit, not just advocating for doing away with classes or making all the classes specific to your sport. >> so steve --

>> it easy to have the discussion revolve around the less than 1% of student athlete s that can go on to be pros. even if they go on to the pros they have an average career of less than four years. they then have to figure out how to live for 50 years on average after that. the university of texas has been one of the top three baseball programs in the country, we average less than one student athlete a year that goes onto play in the major leagues. in all the years we average about three, maybe four that get a chance to be on an nfl roster. so out of the 500-plus kids that we've got on our campus every year, there might be a couple, three, four, five that go on to play. our job is to manage positive outcomes for our student athletes. folks come in with all kind of

.a.t. scores, we do have minimums now, we do have core courses that are required. one of the things we don't talk about here is the problems in education leading up to college. where we rank in the world compared to english skills, math skills, science skills -- you compare us to other countries in the planet we're in the 20's, so we're not doing a great job there, frankly. so you're right. as the g.p.a. and a.c.t. and s.a.t. scores go up, i cone get -- i could not get into the university of texas today. i went there twice, graduated twice. my son is there, my daughter. i couldn't get in today. that's what's going on at universities all over america. >> what i wanted to get to before was how do you manage that. what do you do as administrators now? >> we make sure that we hire the right kind of people that can provide the kind of services to our student athletes, whether it's academic support, we spend more money than any other university in the country in academic support.

we make sure we got one-on-one support, we make sure they get through and stay on track to gr -- graduate on time if they can. we provide services for them to come back if they don't graduate on time, say they're a baseball player and want to try to make it after their third year, they can come back and finish their degrees. we had about a dozen football players that came back last year and finished their degrees. and we make sure we have career counseling for them when they leave the place, we make if they get injured we provide medical services for them, up to two years after they leave, to make sure they're healthy. so we provide these kind of services to make sure we manage positive outcomes for our student athletes. >> i think you left out pep talks. matthew mcconaughey is a huge benefit for the university of texas. >> the reality is we laugh about it somebody like a matthew mcconaughey, it's oftentimes much more important than a -- that somebody has a chance to meet somebody like red mccombs who is a great entrepreneur and can help kid get a job and start and foster their careers. that's the kind of thing you mentioned earlier that you get

at universities, you get those kind of contacts, those kind of tools and meet those people and go on with your career. >> chris, you wanted to add something? >> no, we're good. [laughter] ask a question that may seem like blasphemy. do we need the ncaa? >> you need something. it always amused me that the idea of these schools are going to break away from the ncaa, to which i respond what are they going to do? there is inevitably going to be some type of a structure, i think, that schools will want, and once you create a structure the whole thing is geared around the idea of everybody trying to keep everybody else from cheating or doing something to get an advantage over somebody else. and so whether it is under the ncaa's office or some other entity that we haven't thought of a name of, seems like there's going to be some sort of underlying governance, something to hold the enterprise together.

>> conferences seem to be taking more and more autonomy. >> back to the ncaa, the think you need the federal government? >> there are a lot of old think -- >> go back to the day. we are the ncaa. institutions make up the ncaa. they are a governing body. we need them. they've done a great job for us in terms of academic reform, the compliance reform, the mission of what we're all about. it really started out with safety at one time. it was formed in 1906, with football injuries that came up. the things that have happened, we've needed them and they've been great for us, but we've done a poor job of talking about why we need the ncaa, when they -- and what they do for us. we make them up, our leadership is on the board of directors. a lot of our membership serve on the ncaa. they're a necessity.

whatever form you talk about, with autonomy or not, the ncaa is a necessity. conferences really took power, if you will, when the tv contracts broke up in 1983, and the president said -- football. college football is not part of the ncaa. part of it's eligibility and compliance, that is it. football is outside and conferences are taken over that realm. there was a void that was left through the antitrust of television way back when. now we're put in a position we have two different entities, the college football over here and the ncaa. they're still governed by us as members. and today we're looking at the economic model of it, which is big numbers. and if we would have been back, i want to say, in 1985 they talked about adding the cost of attendance to the membership. we had to go to full cost of attendance, and our membership couldn't agree, because at the time the ncaa bodies -- we were division ii.

400 institutions. division ii and were going to division i at the time, we had the same legislative power that u.s.c. had. they're two different schools. they do not even make sense, in terms of the economics. but you're asking them to vote on a bill about the cost of attendance. they couldn't agree on it now. today, because of the economics, we can do that. >> that seems like a perfect opportunity to transition into a discussion with the big five and this new model that we're going to see. so the college football national championship, we mentioned it before, and i'm not sure if i've got the numbers exactly right, i thought they were estimated at somewhere over $600 million a year from espn. how is going forward with this big five model, how is that going to affect the economics with big pieces like this television contract for the football playoff and for march madness?

what's the future world going to look like for your schools and perhaps for schools like the one that you used to work for, san luis obispo? >> think about this. texas christian university -- we've been in five conferences in 16 years. we're like nomads. when we started out, we were with the southwest conference. they broke up. and at that time we did everything we could to get back in the big 12. that was our goal. we have been on the migration pattern. we hit a perfect storm, we hired a chancellor that has a vision that's second to none, we hired a football coach that we're 1-11 and we go to the rose bowl, and , our campus has grown, and where back to the place we are today, where we wanted to be, and we're in. and that is fantastic. yet it is daunting, because i thought once we got in, boy, it would be a calm ocean. there's more turbulence now than ever. i look at my members in the

mountain west conference and conference usa, and they are outside saying hey, what about , us? i was just there a year ago. i was there five years ago, and i understood their plight and where they were going. in our place, our faculty wants to be harvard monday through friday. our fan base, alabama on saturday and texas christian on sunday. and i suffer from adult a.d.d., so i cannot serve all three masters well, but think about that. think of the pressures. and you're running a business based on people's passion. it's crazy. >> we talked about this a little last time. what do you say to a school like fresno state which is a highly competitive football program, but now is on the outside looking in? >> but they are not. >> explain. >> for the next tranche of schools -- our television revenues for the college playoff went up a little less than double. for those schools -- >> big five. >> you are talking times five. yes. for those more resourced conferences it went up a little less than double. for that next tranche of five conferences, their tv revenues

enoughs went up five times what they were before, so they've caught up in terms of the amount of revenue. and when you look at it -- >> relative dollars. >> percentage or dollars? >> it takes a lot less money to get five times, $10,000, than it does if you have $200 million. that may or may not be a valid way of looking at it. i'm not disputing that there's more money there for everybody. but, you know, the impact of that and how much more there is outside and how those schools then make up that gap, i think is going to be an interesting question. and what does that result in? what does college athletics look at as a result of that? fresno state -- how did those schools tailor their programs? will they be able to tailor the

those programs to do certain things? this somewhat was touched on earlier. where will -- how will the money be allocated and what will be the impact of that on athletics programs? >> those dollars are more important for those schools than they are for us. us all thefor , distributions are 22% of our revenue. the rest, we generate on campus. what i am saying is, if you look at the relative allocations, it is about twice the rest of them. -- twice as much for the top five conferences, about five times as much for the rest of them. the reality is if you look at where the eyeballs are generated, it is the top five conferences. it is not the next five, or the five thereafter. so i think those schools cut a good deal, and they are better off today than they were before. >> i think the gap has always been there, and this power five branding has just perpetuated the perception a little more.

i mean the financial gap has , always been huge, and while i do have some empathy because those power five, recruiting wise, are going to have to fight. they were have-nots two years ago. they just weren't quite at the -- were not quite defined as have-nots. if you extrapolate out the playoff scenarios from the past 10 years, some of those have-nots would have been in. you would have been in at tcu. you finished at the top four. >> three or four times. >> what i'm saying is i think they've actually done a poor job in the football playoff of letting somebody know if a boise is a 13-0, they can still get in . again i'm not going to say that doubled the access, but the whole point is their lot in life is pretty similar now. what they're fighting more is perception.

and i agree with steve that you can parse numbers and say five times as much. it's easy to be cynical about that kind of stuff. but at the end of the day they're about where they were before. >> they're going to get more difficult over time for that gap to be overcome. the gap that's occurring now between texas' budgeting and other schools in the fbs or within division i, every year that gap grows wider. and wider and wider. does that mean it's impossible for savannah state to be able to compete on any level? maybe yes, maybe no. inean, there have been teams baseball and other sports that have risen up and done some pretty cool things. and how those -- and for sure all those opportunities will be there. but i happen to think and there are a lot of people who have bet a lot of money who are really smart businessmen that the the schools like texas at the moment

, schools in those conferences, believe it or not, are actually still underleveraged as business propositions. companies like i.m.g. are wagering a lot of money that those businesses are underleveraged. img. just re-upped with people running i.m.g. are not in the business to lose money. they're paying these schools a lot of money thinking that they will then be able to commercially recoup that and get even more money. how does that cycle continue to go and what is going to be the impact i think is a really i interesting question. where does all this go? >> if you look from us -- and i have a unique perspective of where we were in terms of the economics. >> where would you rather be? would you rather be -- >> of course. >> steve just told you how great life is at fresno state. would you rather be in the mountain west or big 12? >> big 12, thank you very much.

that is why we are here. however, you look at from this perspective though. economically when i was in the mountain west conference and things were happening to the place where we are today, one is perception. two, the big boys. but i was the new york yankees of the conference. we had the biggest budget, we won, we were it. today i'm in the big 12, i have the lowest budget. there's a huge gap. i have a 100,000 seat stadium. we role in at 45,000. the economics within the 64 are still great. but we're in a position now where we wanted to be from our particular institution in the big 12. that was the biggest, and best conference in our region. it made sense. we were brethren -- we have been playing texas since 1900. our record against baylor is 51-51. but the idea we have been playing these schools for a long time. and when the conference shifts we're now playing san diego

state, they have no regional draw to us. yet the television, the american eyeball has determined that these five conferences drive all the traffic. think about that. they drive all the traffic. we're a little bit david and goliath. in terms of us beating wisconsin in the rose bowl that was a , one-off. the terms on any given saturday look at the ratings who is driving that traffic. and if you're school running a school, an athletic program, based on people's passion and wanting to do what's right for your institution, for us to get in the big 12 is the right move for what we wanted. for our president, for our student body, everyone who wanted this, yet i can look gack and media will back at this. -- i can look at and say, wait a minute. media will say, there is a have and have not. that has been going on. the little guys there's only two , schools that made it into the power 64, if you will. us and utah. that is it. it's an interesting dynamic when you think about our brethren going, where would you rather

be? every one would rather be in the big 12 today. >> it comes down to those institutions deciding what kind of investment, from the various constituent groups of that university how much they want to , invest. it could be from the school, it could be from the alums, it could be from other donors, from the student body, from businesses. you know, northwestern is not a big school, tcu is not a big school. we're going to have a heck of a battle on thanksgiving. i don't know who's going to win. but if the schools want to create an environment over who's going to invest in athletics because they perceive there's a value for the university they can decide to make that investment. what they can't do is not make that investment and sit on the outside and criticize the system because there's plenty of , schools who have made the conscious decision, we are not going to invest. and some of the most successful universities in the country. the ivy league is not going to

dry up and blow away. chicago hasn't disappeared. they are great universities. so it's a matter of where you want to make your investment. and what your priorities are. >> what does the future look like then for the schools that choose not to make the investment that the 64 making? what do you think? >> i don't think they're going to be in a position to take advantage of the eyeballs that chris is talking about to drive the interest in their university the same way the schools are that decide to make that investment. >> that is an investment that is being driven -- that's a chicken or egg discussion. i am prepared to make the investment if you let me into the big 12 and i get tv money. i will invest in the athletic row graham. >> no, no. >> but in the meantime how am i , supposed to make that happen? do i run up student fees? >> could be. >> do we take institutional money and drive more of that into the program? >> could be. >> those are the kinds of

questions that schools are having to start to grapple with. are you going to ask the government of the state to do this? you look at the program in hawaii -- i realize that is an outlier program on a variety of levels. but that program is facing unbelieveably difficult choices. and there are state legislators in that state who felt the solution is that the state government ought to help support the athletics program there. and you can debate that on a public policy level and whether or not that's a good investment by the state of hawaii or whether it isn't, but there are a lot of these decisions that get made that create financial situations for people who don't have a say in it. for example, on a student fee basis. whether or not the fee structure for university, for students , ought to be driven by those kinds of conversations. you know, i think that raises some really legitimate questions.

>> it's getting a little too either/or. of course tcu wanted to get back into the big 12. that's where their roots were from. we beat northwestern earlier this year, northern illinois. we can trade notes later for thanksgiving. the fact of the matter is when you look at my school they left the maac thinking they were going to do bigger and better things. they went independent and then years later traveled through the big west and other places. they came back to the reality that the maac was the perfect fit and they wanted to focus on being part of a strong mid-tier conference. it fit. it fit the students, the student athletes, the fans, and the graduates. they've been focusing on that as a school, and one of the downsides is that a school that size don't have the robust programming, if i am looking with my olympic hat on, of sports beyond to the number of levels let's say texas or texas christian does. but they did feel comfortable

that was where they wanted to be as a school and they've been pretty successful in terms of winning football games and being part of what felt right for their brand and for their university. they don't have ambitions to be the next big 12 expansion school or part of the big 10. or something like that. so i don't know if every school is trying to be in or out. >> to steve's point in terms of an investment. i was at rice university, athletic director from 2006 to 2009, and i remember being interviewed. this is my fifth-year anniversary today at tcu. five years ago, i am in a board room. they asked me two questions. can you raise money for a football stadium and can you get us into a bcs conference? that is coming from a board of trustees and a chancellor. now, i will agree to anything. whatever you say. why do you want to do that? because you in this room are going to build that football stadium. that football stadium is $164 million raised. no debt.

donors decided this is what we are going to do. >> if you have the donor base and you can do that. >> but this is just my story. this is our story. we had six people who gave us $15 million each, and i referred , we nickel and dime $1 million, $2 million, $5 million. >> a lot of nickles and dimes. >> yes, sir. a you've got to love oil. but the idea was this is way before the big 12 -- we were in the mountain west conference. we were heading to boise in the fiesta bowl. this is the ambition of what we needed to do. that was so awe inspiring to have a board with this audacious goal. working there was fantastic. to have donors saying, this is what we need to do not knowing , what lay at the end of the tunnel. we dipped our toe for a month and that went out we were fortunate to get in the big 123.

-- the big 12. but the same thing now. we're building a new basketball arena donor funded. chancellor challenged our donors -- the athletic program will not be an incumbrence. not debt. we will raise that money. that is a choice. our donors have really inspired and grappled with. it's been fantastic. and the university now has a $30 million gift for a business college. donors say we're a great institution. we are more than an athletic row graham. -- program. but they've made that investment. that was their audacious goal. i can't speak for others but that was the university our -- and our culture decided that was important for us. >> that's great. that speaks well to the donors, to the universities, to your ability to convince those people to donate. but you look at a school like university of california which just has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into their facilities, and some of that was simply they had to seismically

retrofit a football stadium built over a major earthquake fault. so there's a certain amount you've got to deal with. but the way that kind of financing works is a different setup than you're talking about and where that money comes from. and the california athletics department has a model that works for it great now. but if it doesn't and something craters, where is that money coming from? is that coming from the state? is that money coming from the students? what kind of impact is that going to have on the bond rating for that university? and the downstream impact on students and the bills they're having to pay to do all that stuff. i think to me again, as you look down the road, those are the kinds of questions that i think that you guys have having to deal with and administrators are going to deal with and students are to some extent have a voice

in and to some extent as customers of the universities are having foisted upon them in order to do that. >> that's not true. >> how many -- >> wait. the department of education said you can't do that any longer. for instance at the university , of texas, we had to go market to our students what's now the big ticket at the university of texas that replaced what used to be called the bed tax that everybody had to pay and we wound up with a better revenues, more students buying them, and better product for the students because we had to ask them what they wanted and go sell to them. so it's not fair to say you're imposing something on the student body. the reason cal had to replace their football stadium is because their board of regents said you have to fix it now. a very short timeframe. and it was a difficult construction projuct. decisionult financial for them to make, and a very difficult construction project. out of the $300 million they spent they spent about $175 million doing seismic which got

them no revenue. no improvement in the customer experience. they could have potentially made a different decision. they could have said maybe we'll go play where the 49ers, where the raiders play. they could have said we're not , going to have football any more. they made the decision to keep and fix it. that's their decision. >> i'm not disagreeing that's their decision but there are implications and situations where students have a very moderate -- a small voice in whether or not, for example, student fee increase is imposed, where those decisions are made at the governing board level. >> i think you're misinformed on that. they have to go to a vote. student body votes on that. >> that's not true. there are state institutions where the fee structures at schools are decided on by governing boards. there may be student representatives on those governing boards, but that's going to be one vote.

or perhaps there are different vehicles for students to do things. but i think there have been plenty of instances where these kinds of fee increases have occurred where -- and there is no perfect way. you can't canvass 70,000 students and make a decision. >> i think every case is different. i think just from our perspective we're only talking about where we are today. i cannot speak for every institution. we have chosen to be great in all endeavors. if you look at recruiting a faculty -- and i use this all the time. if we're going to recruit the great chemists and students, we can't use 1950 bunsen burners. you have to evolve. you have to build, you have to recruit the finest students. at tcu, we're trying to compete with texas, harvard, yale, princeton for the finest students in the country to come.

big businesses -- colleges and universities are big business. u.s. news & world report will rank where is my little johnny , going to school? we had a chancellor -- we were not ranked academically. today we are ranked 72nd in the country. we're recruiting some of the finest kids to come to our campus. but you have to invest in chemistry, physics. and we don't talk about that part of the business. we focus on athletics. you know what? aren't 3%,sities, we 10% of the university budget. we make up 90% of the media, but we're only 3% of the entire budget, and in some cases maybe 10%. but the focus is a small focus when you look at the totality of what a university budget is. we are so small, but media is such a big deal we focus on that , little piece. >> so we've established the fact that you're on one side of the fence or the other.

what's the ante if you want to be on the side of the fence with the haves and not the have-nots? you've been on the other side. >> i couldn't tell you that because you start to look at one of the things for us when this whole thing was a geography. we were in the right spot the right media market. you can think about boise. >> what are the investments that you would have to make, or that you were part -- that were part of programs that you were associated with that you had to make? give us an idea. >> what chris hasn't said is the dumb luck of the s.e.c. poaching two big 12 schools that allowed them to come in. they could have built all the stadiums but if the big 12 stayed solid they would still be the yankees. the mountain west. >> texas a&m. >> always be in the big east left and theng had acc had not expanded. we would be in the big east.

we sold our donors we were like the dallas cowboys in the nfc east. traveling east, my friend. >> but we're here to talk about money, so give us some kind of an idea. what does it cost? >> in terms of the investment? think about it. we didn't know -- when we made you think about it, we made the investments we made with an unknown future. when we decided doing the football stadium, we were in the mountain west conference. choice with the idea of, would a new football stadium sustain our growth? know the opportunity would be in the big 12. it's hard to say you have to do order to do that. when we were in a position, and story.a funny never underestimate a college keg party, amen. a guy namedge with jamie dixon, basketball coach at pitt. u.c. santae went to barbara. i get the job at t.c.u. hey.lls me up,

we concocted getting in the big east in the back of a game baylor 2009, 2010. they were in danger of losing hold.b.c.s. if they got t.c.u., they maintain their points. so they wouldn't drop. in, it was a perfect marriage. who would have known that a&m and missouri were going to leave? we were content with that but all the moves we made happened without the knowledge of what to take place in the landscape. we would have been content in the big east knowing what we but once the landscape changes, because of our luck, we weredumb able to get into the big 12. there's no magical number because boise has done wonderful things with their investments. b.y.u. has done wonderful things with their facilities. you look around san diego state, cincinnati, connecticut. are teams -- you start to look, you start putting cases -- our geography and

our investment. >> right time, right keg party. >> andor success. we were successful. right keg party. anusing cincinnati as example. the cincinnati athletics department has an accumulated ofrating debt in the tens millions of dollars and paying money every year, the school is money every year, somebody's paying interest on that debt. accumulating debt is sitting there. that was a decision made by the university to make that investment. going back to the question you question you were asking about what's the ante. and they have done things facilities-wise and so forth. you look at some of what's sinceed around the pac-12 the new television contract that occurred there, these are that were established schools and you look at what's the facilities, the boon in the pay to football

coaches, particularly, within the conference. conference andge these are places that were already in. ante up to have to get in. were already there. you're still playing the game. you look around -- you know this what's now from going on at arizona state in ands of the facilities quest for the sport village, on there, and all of that was being seeded by that television money and so that's with the ante, it's in the facilities, it's in the coaching and doing all those things. >> are you looking at it a black-and-white. i know that's what you're supposed to do and you said you journalist and

oscar wild is a cynic who knows everything, the value of nothing. we hear about this with the hear about theu olympic games and cost overruns. but people think of the university of texas and what does the football team add to the brand value and what does terms of recruiting professors and top students and donors and having matthew mcconaughey do his "true detective" thing on the the studentr athletes. i think there's cynicism in saying they made a profit or and there weren't other ancillary benefits that whether it's 50-year plan that you reference for the theent athlete, or building brand that is the university. when we have been looking at a 2024,ial olympic bid for if you're going into this with a dollars and cents approach, trying to make money for the first line, it's not the right reason. bid hard to say we want a

for the olympics and be burdens on cities but you have to see a than thecture black-and-white numbers. i understand that's your job to get to the black-and-white numbers, steve, but i think beyonds inherent value just whether or not the profit and loss categories for the school and the investments they're making. i'll go beyond the value you're talking about. economic engines that these athletics departments their communities over a weekend in athens, georgia, in inord, mississippi, tuscaloosa, alabama, in auburn, alabama, and you look at the generated as a result of that, to me, if -- you talk about the public policy piece and how that's going. thereust a question -- are a lot of questions, is that appropriate, is that what college -- is that what the college enterprise is all about. i'm not saying it is or it isn't but if you look at the value of

these things, you know, the of the texas football program every saturday in austin hotelms of the numbers of rooms occupied, the number of people sitting in restaurants game, i mean, you drive up and down interstate in after a game in gainesville and the cracker barrel is full, you know, every saturday night. and that's -- that's what's -- that's what's going on. >> sounds like they need better restaurant choices. i'm kidding. >> you look at this real quick. you talk about the academic going.ment, where we're the thing about t.c.u. eight years ago, our s.a.t. was where it was. 4,000 applicants for 1600 spots. sudden, the football coach and perfect storm. we have 20,000 for 1600

spots. we are the brand of our institution. for our s.a.t. has gone through the roof. quality of student has gone because of thef exposure of intercollegiate athletics. that droppedsident sports in the big ten years ago. long-time member and he said the i made wasstake leaving the big ten. collegeam kids love athletics. alums love it. you come to a game, we're packed every game. it's a wonderful experience. we win, lose or draw. it has become the fiber of our marketingn and the brand, good, bad or indifferent. for bad, it's great. for bad, it's bad. but we make up 90% of the media and that brand, we were a good regional university. because of the vision of our institution, our chancellor anded to become global through the rise of sport, we have changed the face of t.c.u. firmly believe that.

>> every university in the successfult has threx -- >> there's value to that but when you only make up between 3% 5% of an institution's budget and you think of the that is academic achievement and greatness and it, wea small portion of focus so much on the small we bring to what the table. >> let's talk about basketball we're approaching basketball season and we have been talking about football. is there any difference in the between the two sports in terms of the way it needs to be managed going forward given the different i guess -- the of it being on one side of the fence versus the other? pete? >> i think college basketball right now, jimmy, has a giant problem. is completelyason irrelevant. i'll bring both institutions here. gamet to the texas-t.c.u. at texas last year.

i almost fell asleep. the atmosphere was -- texas was good. t.c.u. wasn't. not at all. >> wow. spahn, we're great. >> you name dropped your chancellor so many times, she must be watching. it's a he. contract's up. >> i really think that college basketball if you look at the are flat-lined right now. >> the regular season. >> when you go regular season. completely season is irrelevant and atlantic 10 coach tell me this summer at a recruiting event that they had league meetings and the espn person came in and said the mac football wednesday night game of the week, toledo-bowling green throwing the ball around, out carolina-duke. n event-driven

culture. there's so much oversaturation it's one of the negative reverberations of all these media contracts is that on tv and it's not special anymore. the second cable tier and i can watch nine or 10 games. can watch v.c.u. 26 times in the regular season -- >> you are missing out on serious west coast hoops. >> and i like college basketball. i grew up in this business covering college basketball. i think it's a compelling sport many ways but there is no juice left in the regular season and i think it's somewhat oversaturation, it's somewhat the prism through which the whereis covered now somebody loses a game in december and it's like "they're not going to be a three seed, be a five seed." and the tournament's three months away. great.rnament is nothing better in sports than the ncaa basketball tournament. awesome big east.

it rates well, it's compelling on all storylines. have-not have a chance which perpetuated even more but i think right now basketball is an abysmal place. >> i totally agree with you expanding the size of the football tournament which i think would be moving in that a differentt that's discussion. uconn,s of the money, defending national champion, has won five titles in the last 15 years, 20 years, the bignot part of five, are they? >> you can get away with it more than in football. what realignment has taught us is that basketball doesn't matter and it's all finances. follow the money, right? we're in washington. the money follows football. a.c.c., most storied basketball conference, make way more money in football than in basketball.

when's the last time you sat down, i'm going to defend tother and say i'm going watch an a.c.c. football game today. there might be one or two a season. >> i went to maryland. saturday.e on i keep looking for maryland in standings. >> there's a few reasons, i think, for that. want an emotional institutiono their or their team or their game so there are a few institutional problems. frankly, bothuite in the nba and college athletics one-and-done rule. i think it's bad for college and bad for nba managers. the only people it's good for the agents driving the top few guys that can make it into yearros after playing one but it makes it more difficult to establish an emotional attachment with the fan at the university because as soon as

they're attached, they're gone. the second is the number of transfers. 40% of college basketball players transfer after their second year and so we should have fewer opportunities to transfer and quite frankly, we should have a like baseball if you want to go to the pros after high school, go. knock yourself out. there's maybe three guys a year that can do it. theother 200 guys making mistake going early are making a mistake and limiting their lifetime earnings. they should stay in college and get a degree. it would be better for the product and the last thing that we have to do is a better job of marketing. you're right. our game presentation was terrible last year. we're fixing that. when we roll out our basketball it will be year dramatically different looking because you have to go out and to spend to get people time and entertainment dollar to come to one your events. >> you're not going to probably going forward in football, you're not going to have one of the have-not win a national it's entirelyut

possible that it could happen in basketball. why is that? does it cost less? >> need one player. ok. >> the game itself? you're saying the game itself? it? about the economics of we're here to talk about money. is it easier to be a have-not in basketball? >> some of the perceived have-not are haves. marquette has a bigger budget. they're in the big east. you don't even know what they are. we look at have and have-not through a football paradigm look at ay but if you place like marquette in the big east. villanova, et cetera, it's where are traditions. basketball because of espn and east is more market driven so schools that have built a good reputation in cities especially, in the midwest and stretched down, and basketball just costs a lot less. you have 12, 13 guys, you have to may -- pay a coach. staff is 1/8 of the size.

with less inre basketball which is why butler was able to do what it did. league, foxtball put a dump truck of money in the geest play. no. couldn't say so i think even though the ratings were minuscule. registered a little blip. completelyhink how different the sports are financially and steve's right, you do need one player. he returned all his players last year from basketball, they have willshman player who probably be a one-and-done that transforms them into probably a final four team. sinceas been the case larry bird and you can go through history. expansion ofnk the the tournament, 69 teams. hasou think that situation? to this

>> the expansion was to protect the haves. isn't that why they did it? and w.a.c.n west split and they didn't want to give another at-large. i don't know. this probably. but i don't think that small has had a expansion big factor. >> i think it's the number of tv games. there's so many games to watch. really two different markets, right, the viewing audience and who's in arena and need to do a better job of marketing and selling and creating an interesting entertainment environment because the pros have gotten so good. be they the major leagues or minor leagues. college really hasn't did as good a job across the board of creating a fun environment for basketball. you go to this guy's place, it's crazy for tennis.

it's the kind of thing you have to do for all sports. entertaining, engaging environment and when you can't get the emotional attachment because people are transferring every year or going pro, it's a tough sell. parcel of part and conference realignment, keeping track of who's going where and was driven by financial considerations and a lot of driven by football but the trickle-down effect on that has been interesting, as well, you've seen this shuffle continue its way down into various different leagues so you're seeing -- you're seeing aliments in games between teams that just don't feel familiar in a way. conference -- what this year. i think that's had an impact on and that's been driven by financial considerations, i think. >> if i was missouri basketball -- used toas suicide

kansas-texas, et cetera and suddenly you see kentucky and auburn and florida and all other teams, and mississippi state rolls? in. cubicle factor. since b.c. has gone to the they've had dreadful home attendance in basketball no connection to clemson, to n.c. state. duke comes in and that's great when florida state comes in, there's no reason to care, a competitive market. >> that's a separate issue from what you were talking about before which is the national rate chgs really drives the discussion. as athletic directors, want oncreate an exciting event your campus but the national discussion is driven by how

popular things are in people's homes. right now college basketball is having a problem. can you put the genie back in the bottle? >> i think it would help if you one-and-done.e >> what would you like to see? >> the baseball setup. somebody wants to come out out of high school, let them go. they come to university, they should want to be part of the university. aey shouldn't be using it as one-semester training ground to jump to the nba. >> and that hurts the overall perception of college athletics when you have these tourist students. >> when i was at the university of arizona, they had a great you could brand and say basketball was our bell cow was an opportunity in terms of the economic budget butn annual basis one-and-done doesn't hurt arizona or kentucky because the base has been loyal to that program. had i came to t.c.u., we have

been to four tournaments in 60 years and when we were in the west conference, arguably, the mountain west conference was better than in terms of basketball depth at one time. but they didn't resonate. mexico, utah, b.y.u., san diego state, did not metroplex. the they were good teams. didn't resonate. >> i would suggest as a fan that you're arizona, you can follow those players for four years. >> they were still one-and-done, come and go. lieutenant olsen, every four was in the final four. he had an amazing record of getting to the tournament. for us, we were in the mountain west conference -- i mean, had to invest. we were building a new basketball arena. why? brand as basketball we werexistent but if going to make any dent in outside exposure, we needed a recruit the finest athletes

to compete at the highest level have a longon't history of basketball tradition shiny new have the penny and the right coach and they think they do care. new student that sees the new physics building. same concept in basketball. we're going to make that investment to hopefully you see down the road but basketball, the saturation -- remember when i was running the out in arizona, we played a cvs game against kansas. at the time they weren't revenue sharing. sunday cbs000 for a game. saturation of college basketball has gone from big monday to big east tuesday, every night of the week and now we focus so much on the that in college football for a moment, every game is critical. >> cautionary tale. you got 12 games and you are

now watching the media going who's in, who's out, who's moving. six-month juggernaut of your stomach being tight. pepto bismolse of because you're drinking it constantly. every game means something. you cange basketball, run through the league, win your tournament and get in. >> lose your tournament and get in. a magical run in the tournament and next thing you got tou got a coach you to pay. >> from a fan's perspective, i a fan in random teams because i learn about them, hear their storylines over two, three seasons. it's not one-and-done johnny football. many people probably never knew kevin durant played basketball at texas. people learned about kevin durant when he got in the nba. what if kevin durant had been or four years. that product would have been a casualng to watch as

fan. >> the quality of basketball would have been better. >> right. but the quality of the product that you're watching. otherwise, no offense, why would i watch texas basketball? i don't know anything about them. i don't know their players. so as a casual fan you turn into the tournament and duke, north carolina. >> magic johnson left after his sophomore year at michigan state. you look at michael jordan. this is not a phenomenon that's recent. iguodala. >> it's getting worse and more certainly atd certain schools. >> i'll admit this, i'm going to pac-12 basketball media day buy -- atnd i have to the airport. i can't tell you who's coming washington state, at arizona, ucla, maybe u.s.c. but job.is my and i don't know so the casual

fan sure as heck won't know and by the time he does know, the guy's gone. players have worn a kentucky jersey over the last four years? >> it hasn't affected their local fan base and attendance. modelin, it's a different for kentucky basketball like it is i'd imagine for texas football. i want to close with a question to each of you. one thing to fix aspect ofthe money where we are heading or one thing that concerns you most of road we're heading down, what is it, pete? things -- one of the one of the places where we're headed right now, jimmy, that's that as -- and especially at the lower tier big five, as they struggle to build golings compete, as they struggle to catch up, i think we could see a purge of non-revenue sports in more money on the

sports that matter financially most. i think that's a trend we're see in the next five years and i don't think that's good for anybody. the think if we go down road of paying football and players as thel agents and their agents, the us tolawyers, would like do and i got plenty of friends that are trial lawyers including my little brother. you did.st >> we're going to be put in a ofuation as a series enterprises that we'll be forced to make that decision. sports will-revenue be eliminated. you'll see schools asked to go sports, as a minimum to compete, down to 12. i've already sat in meetings have these conversations happened. that's bad for the country. that's bad for olympic sports. for opportunities for people to get out of lesser environments, get on university and have a better outcome in life. loses -- lies't

lose our voice. we've lost the opportunity for young people. focusing on the financing of two. of collegek athletics, it's a failed business model the way it's interpreted in the courts. streams andrevenue we are the largest feeder of athletes for the olympics. not only our own country but around the world. opportunities for students the spectrum has been phenomenal but because america vivacious appetite for forege football and basketball, we are running that program to fund our entire athletic program and thank god to providet ability opportunity for a lot of people yet our voice is lost by trial lawyers. our voice is lost in the media guess what everyone deserves a piece of the pie when providingy is we're unbelievable opportunities for young people. i hope at some point in time the left the station where we can at least regain the amateurin

model. thes someone who played sport, football's become too big in america. it's become too overbearing and much that i fear we're losing sight of some of the things that make our broaderties great, the sports program, the opportunities for women in sport and i don't just say that at the united states olympic committee and we obviously benefit from having that bringrams athletes to us but we also have athletes that come from sports that aren't part of the university. essential part of university life to have that robust sports program and what i hope to see is that as more revenue comes into collegiate sports through, say, football hopefully that of that money will filter into olympic sport and women's sport to promote that on campus. >> steve? i agree with pete that the definition of a broad based athletics program is becoming in

some places is already an endangered species and i think of that kind some of just whole disconnect of who programs are for and what's arepurpose and these events going on around college campss and students are turning away going to football games and is it about entertainment and circuses and is it really the part of what college is and happen that's going to or whether it's just going to become really, really heavily professionalized and the impact of that across what college programs look like. >> steve, patrick, chris, steve thepete, thanks for taking time to join us today. we have another forum coming up shortly. hope you'll join us for that. thanks for coming. [applause] [captions performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]